Nah!

Submitted by Robert B. Arbetman (United States), Jun 4, 2003 at 14:21

Indeed! The breach of contract was all the legal reason to invade Iraq. However, the President made it all too clear that Saddam Hussein's "massive" WMD was the reason to force regime change in Iraq. It's too bad they did that.

The real reason we forced regime change in Iraq was to retaliate against the Arab League for 9/11. We retaliated by forcing their baddest bad-guy, Saddam Hussein out of power and forcing uninvited American GI's on the "holy" soil of the Persian Gulf region. Osama Bin Laden's complaint against the United States was the presence of US troops in the Persian Gulf. Our invasion of Iraq demonstrated to Bin Laden and all like-thinkers that terrorism against the United States would be counter-productive in their desire to see US troops leave the gulf. This was the real reason we went to war with Iraq. Too bad the President didn't have the courage to say this.

In the mean time, the American administration continues to demonstrate that terrorism against Jews in Israel is perfectly acceptable and worthy of Statehood for the aggrieved. We say we don't tolerate terrorism against Israel, but we demonstrate quite the opposite.

Unless a "massive" WMD program is uncovered and the President suspends the current schedule for the "Road Map" (due to the wave of terrorist attacks that have hit Israel in the past month), I see nothing but eroding credibility for the President.

Saying that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's "massive" WMD program wasn't the reason given for forced regime change is an act of denial. Saying that the Administration is sticking to the policies outlined in the President's 6/24/02 policy speech is also denial.

Let's not protect the President's credibility at the expense of our own principals.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".